The debate had reached the stage at which the three candidates present were asking one another questions, and Dillard, a state senator from Hinsdale, had signaled his intention to ask Treasurer Dan Rutherford about the elephant — not the alligator — in the room.

Earlier that day, one of Rutherford's former top deputies had filed a federal lawsuit accusing Rutherford of sexually harassing him and putting pressure on him to do political work on state time.

It was all over the news. Rutherford even held a late-afternoon news conference to categorically and emphatically deny the accusations.

Yet for a little more than an hour, Rutherford, Dillard and state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington stayed far away from the subject, as did the moderator and members of the audience who were posing questions. (A fourth candidate, Bruce Rauner, skipped the event.)

Alligators? What did that old Richard J. Daley malapropism even mean in this context? The alleger, Edmund Michalowski, 43, (right) until recently Rutherford's director of community affairs and marketing, had just surfaced.

Dillard continued. "Treasurer Rutherford, are there any more allegations of sexual harassment coming at you from anyone else?"

There followed a five-second pause, during which those of us listening on the radio heard a smattering of groans and boos.

"Sen. Dillard," Rutherford said at last, with measured, wounded indignation. "I believe that was inappropriate."

It took another two seconds for the audience to break into sustained applause.

But really?

For as wrong as Dillard was to use levity to introduce this touchy subject, he was absolutely right to ask the question on many Republican voters' minds:

Is this it? One former employee — a man struggling with divorce and bankruptcy — coming forward with sordid claims a little more than five weeks before the primary?

Because if so, voters should probably give Rutherford (left) the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the accuser is a lying extortionist or a political tool. Maybe he simply misunderstood a few playful remarks and wry asides. Or maybe Rutherford's lying, but his behavior toward this man was a one-off lapse in judgment, regrettable but forgivable.

After all, as Rutherford has been reminding us while hints of scandal have been swirling about in recent days, he's been in public life for 22 years and never been hit with a similar allegation. That's something.

And given the timing of this lawsuit, there's no way for the public to evaluate fairly this man's allegations in time for the March 18 primary.

But if this isn't it — if in the coming days, weeks and months we're going to see more "himbo" eruptions from employees alleging that Rutherford subjected them to unwanted advances — then Republican voters have a right to know, or at least to evaluate Rutherford on the persuasiveness of his comprehensive denial.

Instead of "I believe that (Dillard's question) was inappropriate," Rutherford ought to have said, "I'm glad you asked."

And instead of proceeding to gripe about "hardball" politics and the "stink" of Michalowski's charges, which he has tried to link, implausibly, to Rauner's campaign, Rutherford should have offered assurances that, as far as he can possibly imagine, there are no more "alligators" in his particular swamp.

One more, and he's done.

Those running for political office can usually survive he-said / he-said controversies, especially ones with as many question marks hanging over them as those hanging over this latest lawsuit.

"Those running for political office can usually survive he-said-she-said controversies, especially ones with as many question marks hanging over them as those hanging over this latest lawsuit.

"But he-said-they-said is game over."

Respectfully, this isn't a he said/she said incident. It's a he said/he said abomination. This elephant isn't about sexual harassment, but the implication that Rutherford is gay. He can't survive this attack as a Republican nominee, even if he's innocent, which can't be proved before the primary. It's game over, whether or not we hear from a chorus on these charges.

ZORN REPLY -- I wrote "he said / he said" and an editor along the line changed it to he-said / she-said. I've changed the online version back to the original for exactly the reason you stated.

Here's a better question for Dillard to ask. Mr. Rutherford what kind of operation are you running over there that results in a senior staffer filing a lawsuit against you 45 days before the most important election in your political life? I don't know who to believe in this whole fiasco, but I do question why a senior staff member would choose to do this to Rutherford at this point in time. Says a lot about his leadership.

While I cannot completely rule out that the plaintiff may be right, I think Rutherford deserves the benefit of the doubt. He has been in Springfield for over twenty years and has had no such allegation.
It kind of reminds me of when I was hoping Colin Powell would run for President. I then thought to myself, it only takes one person to ruin it. I hope that is not the case for Rutherford. I think he brings competence, decency, and respect to the table with a sincere love for his home state of Illinois and a desire to make our state better than it is now.

"Or maybe Rutherford's lying, but his behavior toward this man was a one-off lapse in judgment, regrettable but forgivable."

I agree with your first two maybes and giving Rutherford the benefit of the doubt, but if he is guilty as charged, sorry, it doesn't matter if it was a "one-off" thing. There is no excuse for sexual harassment or assault (which is what it is if he indeed touched the guy's genitals) nor is there any excuse for for pressuring an employee into corruption. Not even once.

ZORN REPLY -- I think we get too sensitive with our terms if we deem all rebuffed physical passes as "assaults." -- now, I agree that a grab toward the genitals is worse than just a pass...it's vulgar, clumsy, rude... but if it stops immediately after being rebuffed and isn't repeated, it's really a lot closer to what most teenaged boys experienced at one point or another when being "tagged out" trying for another base, as it were, than it is to what we commonly think of as sexual assault.

Perhaps Rutherford said what he did because he doesn't know if there are other liars out there, or people put up to this by others. And -- having said that -- I've no idea if the accuser is a liar or not. I'm saying this from Rutherford's point of view.

Also -- Wendy, I respectfully disagree. I don't think it's a question of accusing him of being gay. (But maybe this morning I'm living in a dream world, too.)

This wouldn't be about Rutherford being gay, but for his unambiguous denial of being gay. He has left himself no wiggle room, and that's the real elephant in the room. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Give Rutherford the benefit of the doubt? Maybe if this was the kindergarten playground. This is Illinois politics. He's done for regardless of what he did or didn't do. Maybe that's not right but it's reality.

I don't think this would be as big of a deal were Rutherford married (I could be wrong), but the implication that brings this story front and center are clear. This is far more damaging than a one-time charge of sexual harassment (assuming this is a one-time event), though this triggered the scrutiny. He's done in the Republican Party.

"I was picturing Brad Pitt, not Rob Reiner" I got more of a Phil Silvers vibe.

I still can't get over the timing of this....allowing Edmund Michalowski maximum profit from this allegation. I give credit to Rutherford for forging ahead, but between last Friday's (1/31) press conference, the room sharing (between superior and subordinate), and his reluctance to "come out" (one way or the other) regarding his sexuality, he's simply putting off the inevitable.

BTW - I'm not a homophobe and I've shared hotel rooms with co-workers, but they were of the same gender (presumably straight, but I didn't inquire) and same job level.

On a related note, I think we're entering an era where every responsible HR department is going to veto the idea of employees sharing rooms. The cost savings can not justify the potential legal costs. If I'm the company's General Counsel, I am sitting down HR and making that point very clear for them.

@Wendy - I agree with you. He needs his personal assistant to accompany him on a trip to Australia (presumably sharing a room), yet at the same time unequivocally denying that he is gay? The hard rightists in the Illinois Republican Party will NOT vote for him. He's toast.

Wendy -- I'd no idea, especially about sharing hotel rooms. I have a new job and I'm still getting used to a really big change in schedule, work hours, etc. I'm way behind on newspaper reading, sadly. (You'll note I still manage to drop in here, upon occasion! Shows my liking of the sight and the value I find here.)

I would not want to share a hotel room with a co-worker. I just wouldn't. That's a measure of how much I like to get away from people and have my own downtime, essentially. My husband has begun traveling a fair amount with a team that assesses other organizations and I don't think he ever has to share a room.

BTW, I don't know if Rutherford is gay and I don't care. That's his business and he's denied this many times. Until he says different, I don't care about the implications hinted at in the press and elsewhere.

The only time I have EVER heard of room-sharing by employees is when they were married or a committed couple and said that was ok with each of them. I used to travel a great deal and went to many conventions with other employees and many other companies.

--It's very telling how many people care more about Rutherford's sexuality than about his alleged abuse of power. Hard to believe that 14 years into the 21st century anyone gives a rat's patoot about the former. Of course, the latter is so commonplace it's just normal, I suppose.

Well, we know for sure he lied on his expense report submitted to the state of IL. He admitted that is the lawsuit filing. Because Rutherford asked him to? So he says. Sounds like a complete phony to me.

(And remember, please, I have no horse in this race.)

Greg: " I think we're entering an era where every responsible HR department is going to veto the idea of employees sharing rooms."

I had no idea we were in an era where this is common, until I read about this and read the other related comment threads.

I travel ALL THE TIME on business, and I've never been asked to share a room with anyone for "cost saving" measures. Jeepers. (Off course, since I now run a private consulting practice my travel is always without colleagues. But previously I've traveled all over the U.S., Europe and Asia on business.)

Had I ever been asked I would have said no. Had my company insisted, I would have insistently declined. Had the employer required it, I would have refused to go on the business trip.

"Several human resources experts said superiors should avoid sharing a room with a subordinate, for reasons ranging from potential discomfort for the employee to allegations of favoritism or harassment against the boss."

@rayspace - But what do you do if your values lean far more Republican than Democrat and you happen to be gay? It just amazes me that the Republicans can't figure out they would win more elections if they would just build a bigger tent. There's no good reason for them not to welcome the LGBT crowd, the hispanics, the pro-choicers, and other groups. Instead they've chosen the path of restricting voter's rights to win elections. I don't see how they can sustain as a party unless they get some new leadership that welcomes all comers.

I agree, CBT. And I understand that there are LGBT people who identify with some or most of the Republican platform. But when part of that platform is also to trash your very identity, I don't see how LGBT people make that leap, although I suppose the human mind can rationalize anything.

But you're right--unless the Republican Party turns off the culture wars in both campaigns and in office, they're not likely to win votes from LGBTs, African-Americans, Latino/as, Asian-Americans, etc.

We have the biggest tent. The only people who accuse us of having a small tent are those who want us to compromise our values by becoming more like them. We aren't for welfare for homosexuals or heterosexuals who can support themselves. If you can grow up and present an ID and support yourself then you are quite welcome to be on the right side of the culture war.

You have a selective reading disorder. We conservatives welcome anyone who is willing to be an adult. Support yourself and join us. We'd even take you. No one is asked to "trash your very identity." You're only asked to carry your own weight. It's a very simple political philosophy when it comes down to it.

Sorry, GregJ, but you can't just own the parts of your party that you like. Admit it--the anti-gay sentiment in this country comes from Republicans. Or put another way, not every Republican is anti-gay, but if you're anti-gay, you're also a Republican. It was a Republican President who pushed anti-marriage equality ballot measures in 2004 as a way to (successfully) bring out the most virulently anti-gay elements of the party. Small government may be the way you see the Republican Party, but there's nothing "small-government" about backing laws that discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, no matter how self-sufficient they are.

Rutherford sexually harassed an employee. Are you defending that, Wendy? If he didn't do it, are you defending the idea that he's not dead in the water anyway?

Rayspace, I don't care why people vote the way the vote. I vote against gay "marriage" (which I think means homosexual relationships given equivalent legal status to actual marriages, but you can check me on that) because I don't want yet another handout to people who can provide for themselves. If someone votes the correct way for reasons I disapprove, it's all the same to me.

"I love my job, but if I had to share hotel rooms with my coworkers I'd quit yesterday." - I guess it depends on the co-worker, but those co-workers would probably quit if they had to share a room with me. :)

Call it "equal rights" all you want but I call it "equal welfare." Married couples, the vast majority of whom can support themselves, get special tax breaks for what reason? Then the gays want in on it and I applaud them for getting theirs. The only problem is that it's one more step toward our Internal Revenue Code meaning "Every man for himself." In other words, get whatever special breaks you can. As I've written here often, I'm actually cool with that in terms of my own personal interests. I do a very good job of paying as little in tax as I can if I may say so myself. From a policy perspective, however, all of these little carve-outs and breaks and loopholes must be paid for by someone. So who pays? Not the wealthy. The tax games hurt the poor and middle class.

@Wendy C,

And I didn't object to him as a candidate. The problem is that he used poor judgment so none of this matters. Whatever one thinks of the charges against him, or what he had to do to stay on the down low, or anything else about his politics or personal life, he is toast and it's at least a little bit his own doing.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.